Regardless of them having a seriously important sightings database, with loads of equally as important information on the subject ... I wouldn't pay too much notice to what the BFRO says about research.

Generally, dogs do not appear to be favoured by Seatco. However, the fact that this theory is drawn from many eyewitness reports that always include them accompanying these dogs, which would naturally suggest a direct challenge to their evasion of hunters, is not a stretch to imagine. Seatco are human, and it is natural for humans to develop bonds with animals. I know it sounds ridiculous but there are reports, however in a serious minority, of Seatco being seen to behave this way.

I wouldn't pay too much notice to anything any bigfooter says about research.

Yes there are reports of bigfoots with pets, but there are also reports of invisible bigfoots and bigfoots turning into energy orbs and bigfoots in flying saucers. You can find bigfoot reports about anything.

Eyewitness bigfoot testimony is worthless. They're all just stories, and not even consistent stories. They run the gamut from extremely dubious to downright insane. It's all garbage in, garbage out. The more stories there are, the less any of them can be trusted, not more. Piling garbage on top of garbage cannot turn it into anything other than garbage.

"Witness testimony can be tested and assessed for reliability. Examples of approaches to testing and assessment include the use of questioning, evidence of corroborating witnesses, documents, video and forensic evidence."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

When "stories" are substantiated by evidence, then they are not worthless. In fact, the entire judiciary system is propped up by it. If eyewitnesses make missidentifications regarding key information of an incident, they rarely make missidentifications of the actual incident. For example, multiple witnesses to a giant hairy human stepping out into the road may make missidentifications regarding weight, height, whether it had hair on its face... But not that the giant hairy human stepped out into the road.

We need mainstream science to drop the idealism and investigate. That's to the detriment of their integrity, not the credibility of this subject and the many tens of thousands of people who have contributed to cultural and contemporary anecdotes over thousands of years (that in turn has physical evidence in support).

11:51 A barking dog alerting to a sasquatch would ruin the advantage for a group during an outing in which the goal is to get close to one. I paid to go on an outing. It was well worth the money to me and I would like to go to another. If someone brought a barking dog out for the night activities the whole thing would have been ruined.

You do realize that your chances of encountering a bigfoot in the woods are highest when alone, right? Not in a group. And you can do that for free.

The BFRO doesn't allow guns or dogs on their ridiculously overpriced little "expeditions" because they send paid actors into the woods to howl and knock on trees and throw rocks and pretend to be bigfoots. If one of those ersatz squatches were to be shot or bitten it would ruin the whole "bigfoot experience" (a.k.a. hoax).

Bigfoot may be a myth. Bigfoot may be real. But the BFRO is definitely a scam.

Proof? You've got proof of what you claim then that people are acting on these expeditions? NO?

Post it up. I'll be waiting.

Btw- we were only asked to pay the admission of 1 person and we were a family of 4. And that included the campsite for 3 nights and use of a flir on the night investigations. Nobody was interested in making a bunch of $ off us. Yes some were carrying I felt safer for it. Guess you dont know everything.